"I sense injuries. The data could be called pain."
All Things Second Amendment
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Declaration isn't argument or proof, but it's mostly what constitutes your output.
He does what he canned.
A lawyer friend of mine who grew up as a part of the same Southern gun culture I did, recently wrote to me,
"A weapon is a tool. From a dull butter knife to nuclear weapons that is true. No one argues that private individuals should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, or a whole host of other military weapons. Reason? Too dangerous. They are outlawed. You okay with that? No private individual needs an assault weapon.
I am not anti-gun ownership. I am anti assault weapon ownership or large capacity magazine ownership. Why? Too dangerous. Ronald Reagan sponsored an assault weapon ban that stayed in effect for a decade, but was done away with by the NRA/GOP. Since then, assault weapons are gun sellers' biggest sellers.
If you went into my grandfather's gun closet, there were all kinds of hunting weapons, but not one assault rifle. He was a hunter and sportsman and he wouldn't have needed a gun designed for the military anyway.
The tool you use to kill matters. Some are just too dangerous for the public to own."
I think he's right.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Neither is begging the question argument or proof.
A weapon is a weapon, and the right to bear arms is the right to bear weapons, not tools.
That was President Bill Clinton. Reagan's gun control law was in 1986, and it's still in force; outright banning civilians from owning any selective fire weapon made after 1986, regardless of permitting or licensing.
Every country who doesn't recognize the right to bear arms in their law (virtually all of them), does have a process to permit hunters to own their guns. They're treated more like owning cars, than like a human right. And it is never for purposes of self defense.
"Weapon."
That's a declaration.
Words mean what they mean, not what you need for them to mean.
Which is a tool, unless you don't use it to do anything.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Turnabout.
Right. And we disagree because when you say "the right to bear arms," you mean one thing, and when I say "the right to bear arms," I mean another. We continually speak past each other. It's parallel to me and you thinking different things when saying "God." At the end of the day, we just believe in different Gods.
And refusing to call a weapon a weapon is defying that "words mean what they mean, not what you need for them to mean." The right to bear arms is the right to bear weapons.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And for a very specific purpose - "the security of a free state"
The answer you gave is:
You deflect a reasonable question, and you called anyone that would ask "paranoid". Thus, your answer is "I'm too good to answer questions from little people like you."
So here are some more questions: Has government confiscation of guns ever happened before? Why couldn't it happen here?
If you don't support confiscation then aren't you ignoring the deaths of many innocent people in a mass murder situation? If not, why not? Would confiscation somehow cause more deaths than mass murder?
It's a close parallel. Paying women for sexual inconvenience is the same as paying someone to sell anything against their will.
You've never considered data with a resolution greater than whole states. You ignore all other data.
But within states we have a typical city:
View attachment 26876
Forced buy-backs are confiscation. You ignore any factual data presented. Saying "It could never happen here" is naive.
And together with ignoring any data you don't like comes name calling. That correctly describes an elitist.
Your emotional appeal is noted. But if we would follow my proposals instead we'd certainly reduce the number of black dots; instead of *maybe* reducing the red dots but likely increasing the black dots.
View attachment 26875
Then what's the percentage since you consider it a "small percentage"? What data did you use? What percentage gets down to a "small percentage", 30%, 20%? Currently gun manufacturers have been producing more semi autos than any other type.
So when guns were taken in history it was different than now? How so? Are you sure it's so different that someone that notes historical examples have a "thin hold on reality"?
The question was how would the argument be different when mass murderers use revolvers, and/or pump action shotguns, and/or small capacity magazines with a semi auto.
The guns that *you* own can cause a great deal of death very fast. I guess that's the line then, between when we should pay attention to a statistically insignificant number and when we shouldn't.
Town Heretic thinks if you haven't owned something for very long (whatever his high-brow definition of "very long" is) then the government can take it.
The fantasy of "it could never happen here". Are you sure about that? Tell us how you prove that.
The reason to have freedom to defend one's self is to save lives. The data prove this. In areas with more guns and less regulation, violence rates are about the same as any place you consider safe. In areas with high gun regulation and low gun ownership rates, violence is high. Only an elitist could ignore the data.
Sure, let's get into it. How many deaths from mass murderers are you willing to tolerate to keep your more-than-breach-loading guns?
What is the maximum number of rounds a magazine ought to be allowed to have? Would just 1 more be okay? Shouldn't it be 1 less to be even safer?
He says to his buddies in the ivory tower about data he ignores.
You're wrong about Braddock. He was a great deal more devious and smarter than your average loser mass murderer. If the way he was doing it would have yielded about the same result as your average mass murderer, he wouldn't have done it that way. If bump stocks had been illegal, making them would have been rather trivial for someone like him. What I don't get is why we never got information on why he did it.
It won't affect the black dots much, except maybe to increase them. Only in your fantasy could a possible reduction in the red dots equal a "significant impact".
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The second amendment, as written, did not exclude the most deadly weapon of the era - the fully armed man of war, carrying cannon power sufficient to destroy a harbor town and all those living in it. Or an unarmed vessel carrying passengers, for that matter.
No, it means I don't repeatedly take paranoid fantasy seriously.
I know we've outlawed guns before. I don't know of anyone going door to door. You don't have to for the reasons I've set out prior, including attrition, and the inability to use the weapon legally for any purpose, coupled with the chance to get something back for it.
I think in Australia they had a big buy back campaign then let the law and attrition deal with the rest.
I believe you can't just go into people's homes without due process attaching and probable cause. "They might have a gun they didn't turn in," isn't going to meet the standard any judge would find reasonable.
How is it a close parallel? Try telling me without just repeating your belief. Logically, how is it close?
Actually untrue. What I've considered and noted is data from whole nations, every other Western industrial democracy, as a matter of fact. In our nation, states set individual laws and when you look at states the A rated are all among the safest and the least safe are all possessors of F ratings. The outliers will tend to be in the C and B range.
That's a smaller sampling. I mean, you could look at part of Illinois and Chicago and make one point and at New York City and New York state and make another. Larger is better.
In the broadest sense, but not in the sense of seizing, taking by force. So if you only mean buy backs are a mechanism by which the state incentivises owners to turn in the weapons, sure.
In order and with as much authority, I don't and it isn't.
In order, untrue and it doesn't.
My argument isn't an appeal to emotion, though anyone who is unmoved or disconnected on the issue, emotionally, would be worrisome.
Still complete nonsense for the reasons offered the first time you proffered it a long time ago.
I didn't see me make a percentage claim in the quote, though I saw me challenging you to prove your proffer on a percentage.
In general, if you want to have an ongoing conversation and expect me to recall very particular references you need to not wait for several days and/or link to the conversation so I can scan it. I'm having this discussion with a number of people in a number of forums and I just went back, page by page because you failed to provide one link to see this one was left on the vine 6 days ago...I've probably had a dozen different conversations with about as many people on the topic since then, and more on others. Either tighten the window on your answers or we'll have to keep to general discourse with particular illustrations. I'm not going to be on top of the nuance of a needle in a haystack a week later.
A rifle is more accurate at distance. It's hard for most people to be very accurate with handguns outside of a small range, even when they're calm. Shotguns tend to carry between six to ten rounds before they need to be reloaded and can't be as easily handled as rifles, are more unwieldly absent a shortening that would impact accuracy.
Not really. Why do you believe that?
Rather, I note that the sort of killing fields we've seen a number of venues transformed into were the product of a weapon that hasn't been a part of our landscape, as gun owners, for most of our history, and that we can and have met every legal purpose without them. Given how they're being used, we should do that again.
I'm not projecting a fantasy by noting one. The primary question to distinguish the reasonable from the other is simple enough, how likely is the fear/concern? How often have we seen result X in the same circumstances. And when you're weighing a known harm with a hypothetical and potential need or harm the latter should be compelling and rooted in more than possibility.
We had all the freedom before those guns than we have with them. They didn't expand freedom, they expanded our capacity to kill dozens of people in moments.
The Dayton shooter ended, reasonably, the old good guy with a gun nonsense. A trained good guy, a professional police officer with a gun put the holder of an assault rifle down in about 30 seconds or so. And the guy with the AR killed nine and wounded dozens.
The data doesn't hold true for states or nations. What does hold true is that where you have stronger gun laws, with the elimination or serious regulation of semi-automatic weapons, particularly rifles, you have dramatically safer populations.
Outside of ARs, most deaths by weapons come from handguns. A great deal of that is suicide, which is a strong argument for supporting mental health screening and measures in relation to gun ownership. Beyond suicide you're talking about weapons used in the furtherance of criminal activity, largely gang related. The weapons I own wouldn't be very effective for mass murders, certainly not what we've been seeing in Dayton and other places.
The question for me is balancing the reasonable exercise of the right, which can accomplish any number of legal acts, with the danger of the instruments permitted for those purposes. I think ARs cross the line where the benefit is outweighed by the risk they pose to public safety, demonstrably. People weren't doing that with lever action Winchesters and for good reason, Carrying capacity, the time it takes to chamber, aim, fire, and chamber the next round, etc.
No, because the argument has never been we should reduce the danger from every firearm without regard for the good those same weapons can accomplish, even before we get to the right to possess them. Self-defense, hunting, recreation, there are any number of legal activities that are and should be permissible exercise and they can, all of them, be accomplished without the use of ARs. Without semi-automatics, comes to it, and with magazines that I'd restrict to no more than six shots if we keep semi-automatics outside of ARs. Ideally I'd five plus one in the chamber clips. With some rifles and shotguns that hold between 10 to as much as 17 rounds, modifications or stringent regulations relating to their possession and use would be reasonable.
You're the elitist, since you think you know more. So that's funny right here.
I don't recall saying much about his intelligence. I don't think it took much intelligence to do what he did.
Paddock didn't apparently care for us to know. No manifesto or note. Whatever was in his mind appears to have stayed there.
Declaration isn't argument or proof, but it's mostly what constitutes your output.
It's funny on three levels. First, because the most cogent points you make tend to be you parroting others. Second, because you never attribute the source. Lastly, because you always misapply and never support your use.
For everyone else, here was the quote/response Polly tried to slap that on: "The tool you use to kill matters. Some are just too dangerous for the public to own."
First sentence: the tool you use to kill matters. Prima facie, which is why people killing from a distance choose weapons more accurate at a distance and why people who want to kill a lot of people chose rapid fire semi-automatics here with large capacity magazines.
Second sentence: some are just too dangerous for the public to own. It's not an argument so much as a note of the established precedent in law.
Maybe that's just another instance where Stripe being a foreigner and not understanding the Court's rulings on point ends up with him looking foolish...well more so, because of the whole unattributed misuse thing. You get the idea...which is usually more than I can say for Stipe.
Racist.
You've a whole lot of declarations and a whole lot of poorly thought through statistics, and when called on it you make out like my heritage means that my opinion has no value (how's that for not substantiating anything, ya great galah).
In short, you declare that other people declare. And that's about it.
That's a declaration.
Yes, so was that.
Hey, that was a declaration.
Is this a declaration?
No.
But that was.
That's not a declaration!
Must mean you're right. :idunno:
Also, aren't you barred from some discussion?
We can fix that right quick. :banana:
